A Civil Religious Debate

You can't define something really well until it is down with stiffness. If you are an Atheist, you understand the non-existence of God. Giving it a different meaning especially the kind where criticizing faith is just out of the line!

Certain Atheists only lack the understanding of Humanity and human emotions. They understand quiet well that they disbelieve and criticize the believes that they term blind. They hope to see a betterment in the light of something different. That isn't wrong. It is how they get people against them instead of making a point. It is how some of them mock the believes and underestimate and not care of indifference.

God is a strong word. You have faith in it or not. It cannot be ignored since it is used every time, everywhere in a lot of different contexts. It is not wrong to use it with ease of flow. It is wrong though to use it in a context that takes blames. A lot of faith is carried in the word. To most of them.

Oh I know a universal truth. That every stupid man gets paid real hard... If you drive stupidly you get it on your ass. Like right now... With me!

It is better off just not to believe and worry. If you have to do something good, just do it cuz you choose to.

That is right. In fact... Certain things that mean offence or that is rebellious may just be ignored and get along with what is the best. There are a ton of things in all the religions that are beautiful. Eliminating anything is a bad idea if it has notions that guide right.

Proof is evidence. But if the evidence is not convincing enough, it isn't considered better than it was. Like Parapsychology is quite accomplished but it isn't legal yet. Lie detectors aren't evidences. Also, a man's statement who has a criminal record isn't a proof. Proof has to have the power to release a fair judgement. Sometimes fair... Sometimes not.